Discussions of rape nowadays use examples of women who are asleep, or have taken drugs or drunk too much alcohol, in order to argue that they cannot properly consent to sex. If they feel taken advantage of the next day, they may call what happened rape. The Daphne project’s Sweden researchers propose that those accused of rape ought to have to ‘prove consent’, but attempts to legislate and document seduction and desire are unlikely to succeed.
I'm sure someone who speaks the language can provide some case law, but I'm sure you'd demand to see the original documents.
There's already video of that. It's two women coincidentally deciding they didn't want to have sex with him after the fact. Alternatively, you can go to any bar right now and hear the same conversation.
It's too bad in Sweden they don't think adult women should be held accountable for their own consent. It's certainly a bizzarre form of feminism.
I never said they didn't escalate it. But perhaps instead of blaming the guys who take it the last yard, it would behoove you to pay attention to who had the ball for the previous 99. The ACLU has been screaming at the top of their lungs since 2002 about unreasonable searches and seizures, but no one listened until it was too late.
And also, fuck you for caring only when it made it to your wife's tits. I guess strip searching and/or blowing up women and children, as long as they were the correct terrorist skin color, was alright?
Now, why wasn't this news back then? Because the GOP gets away with pretending that when they violate basic civil liberties, it's for a good purpose. When Obama came in and declared torture illegal and wanted to shutdown Guantanamo, he's called out for endangering America.
Mandatory screening came after the underwear bomber, and it was pushed by a guy you may remember named Michael Chertoff and the rest of the paranoid fucks like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly, who turned it into a political game to try and prove that the Obama Administration was weak on terror. So they responded with more security measures.
Yeah, the Democrats are still a member of the business party. Are they better than the paranoid, ignorant trash the GOP needs to stay relevant? Absolutely, as every uninformed response like this has demonstrated.
Now, why wasn't this news back then? Because the GOP gets away with pretending that when they violate basic civil liberties, it's for a good purpose. When Obama came in and declared torture illegal and wanted to shutdown Guantanamo, he's called out for endangering America.
Mandatory screening came after the underwear bomber, and it was pushed by a guy you may remember named Michael Chertoff and the rest of the paranoid fucks like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly, who turned it into a political game to try and prove that the Obama Administration was weak on terror. So they responded with more security measures.
Yeah, the Democrats are still a member of the business party. Are they better than the paranoid, ignorant trash the GOP needs to stay relevant? Absolutely, as every uninformed response like this has demonstrated.
Oh, I'd forgotten that the TSA, PATRIOT ACT, bank bailouts, illegal wiretapping, secret torture prisons, Guantanamo, and all the rest of it were products of the Obama Administration during it's reign from 2001 to 2009... but wait, wasn't he elected --
Hang on... okay, Fox News is back on. Whew! The blonde lady made it all make sense again.
I've worked with musicians for about a decade. They all have their own opinions on matters like this, which I've heard many times, in studios, at shows, or just getting fucked up at barbecues.
Mozart does not move modern people like Hey Jude. Hell, I can think of hundreds of artists who are more relevant. Ray Charles, the Stones, James Brown, Black Sabbath, Cash, Woody Guthrie... Mozart may have more technical brilliance, but that's not what music is about.
This is like Bonham versus Buddy Rich, or Hendrix versus Stevie Ray Vaughn. Buddy Rich is in a different universe of technical brilliance, and Vaughn is markedly better than Hendrix, but whose songs do you remember?
Yeah. If the J-Biebz ever has one song a third as meaningful as any song off of the White Album, I'll buy a hat and eat it.
The Beatles are like the last generation's Mozart, or this generation's Radiohead. The pushed boundaries, established entire genres with single works, and their music continues to be relevant decades after it was released to people who don't even speak the English language.
Bieber is another instrument of the music industry. Without ten producers and million dollar ad campaigns, no one would know his name. He will be replaced as soon as the hysteria winds down with another forgettable tween marketing tool.
A decent new turntable with a built-in preamp is only $80. Assuming you already have speakers somewhere, you can head down to your local record store and pick up some Beatles reprints at $10 a pop. It won't give you their whole catalog for under $150, but it will give you the best albums and better sound.
If you like classic rock, you haven't heard it until you've spun it on vinyl. For music produced after 1995 it's usually useless, since it was cut digitally.
Reality is a bitch, and technical and engineering types deal with reality.
It's a good thing you're not an engineer.
Photovoltaics do not require direct sunlight, or specifically sunlight at all, in order to function. That's why calculators work inside of buildings without windows. As for this device, I don't know how much power it requires, but I wouldn't be surprised if they designed it so it would operate with the power provided by a kerosene lamp or other type of fire.
Again, please fuck off, and leave all that tough thinking to the adults. Your childish hubris and adolescent lack of self-doubt, a prerequisite for any real engineer, is quite useless out there in the real world.
This perfectly illustrates why the nerd pedantry is lonely, angry, and ignored. People with lives understand "requires no external power supply" to mean "doesn't have to be plugged in." Instead of accepting this, a few people have decided to ignore the hard work of these people to bring revolutionary educational tools into the hands of poor rural children, and quibble about thermodynamics.
From the top and bottom of my heart, please fuck off. The adults are doing useful things. Leave them to it.
It uses a tiny solar cell, like a calculator. If you have some form of light, you have a computer.
Palem says the I-slate is the first of a series of electronic notepads being built around a new class of low-energy-consumption microchips under development with Switzerland's Center for Electronics and Microtechnology. The team says the chips will allow the I-slate to run on solar power from panels similar to those used in hand-held calculators.
If you aren't going to read the articles posted to slashdot, may I ask why you are bothering to come here in the first place? Did they run out of rabble at the local Tea Party meeting inside the Chuck-E-Cheese?
In reality, democracies are run by people, not some magical entity called "government."
I think you would have found a very different result on plantations in the south if the slaves were allowed to vote. Alas, the wealthy didn't want anyone else to have that privilege. You should count yourself a proud member of that tradition.
Germany is far more socialist than the US, and is second only to China in raw exports, and second to very few across all economic measures. Your arguments are as hollow as that spheroid travesty you call a head.
A cursory glance at supply and demand will reveal that when the supply isn't finite, the curve doesn't work. Digital media and software consumption is virtually unlimited in supply, so no economic rules apply to it. Likewise, when robotics are mature enough, it will be vastly cheaper to have a million dollar machine that's only input requirement is electricity and maintenance. No sick days. 24 hour operation. No pension, health insurance, bathroom, parking space, or anything else required.
The modern factory was basically established at the very beginning of the 20th century. The next turning point is the computer and robotics revolution, happening now. It is neither useful nor germane to talk about labor productivity in the 18th and 19th centuries. They didn't even have running water, much less hydraulics, hydroforming, microelectronics, etc. Oh, and the quickest way across the country was measured in months, not hours.
The industrial advancements and subsequent employment described above didn't come about because of "heavy regulation" or "direct government control".
No, they came about because of government investment. For better or worse, military technology is the basis for modern life. Without the need for vacuum tube machines filling rooms to calculate trajectories, we would not be communicating as we are now. Companies do not have the resources or the incentive to perform purely scientific research. That's why it all happens in publicly funded education, whether directly or through government research grants. Then it's handed off to private corporations to develop further.
Corruption is a natural state of a large government with low accountability to the public
This is absolutely true. Corruption is also the natural state of every corporation, period. So, when the government is unable or unwilling to regulate the market, it falls apart like a house of cards with a brick on top.
PS: Please continue your argument against education by explaining the following: how is a second home for a wealthy person more economically useful than the education of a dozen students at a community college?
You're dodging the question again. You assert that strong governments destroy economies, but you cite China, Singapore, and Taiwan as growing economies as if they weren't strong states with strong regulations. Fucking Singapore? The same nation that has a blanket ban on chewing gum? China... China?
I don't think the other voices in your head are still taking you seriously.
What is funny about you, is that you have not a single clue about the actual world that is around you.
That's a lot of shit to spew to end up not saying a single thing about the efficacy of regulatory economies. Nearly every single country in the top 100 has a strong regulatory economy.
Let me remind you of your assertion that you have failed to support: "Gov't intervening does not make any sense and it ends up destroying economy." Yet you can name no economy that's doing well that doesn't have an intervening state authority and regulated market.
You are still pathetically, laughably, and predictably full of shit.
Start your graph in 1700 instead of 1950. Then we'll have something to talk about.
You're quite aware that modern economics didn't fully develop until the late 19th Century, right? The reason there's no graph through the 18th Century is because they wouldn't know what to measure.
There's a guy named Henry Ford you also may have heard of:
The provision of a whole new system of electric generation emancipated industry from the leather belt and line shaft, for it eventually became possible to provide each tool with its own electric motor. This may seem only a detail of minor importance. In fact, modern industry could not be carried out with the belt and line shaft for a number of reasons. The motor enabled machinery to be arranged in the order of the work, and that alone has probably doubled the efficiency of industry, for it has cut out a tremendous amount of useless handling and hauling. The belt and line shaft were also tremendously wasteful – so wasteful indeed that no factory could be really large, for even the longest line shaft was small according to modern requirements. Also high speed tools were impossible under the old conditions-neither the pulleys nor the belts could stand modern speeds. Without high speed tools and the finer steels which they brought about, there could be nothing of what we call modern industry."
Nationalized infrastructure, like health care, roads, rail, energy production, research and development, and education are the very definition of socially shared resources. It's accomplished in different ways -- heavy regulation or direct governmental control -- but the effect is similar.
Or by regulated markets. The effect is similar, but some ways work better than others.
3. I don't care if ANYBODY thinks gov't regulations is a 'good thing'. Gov't is terrible from my perspective for every single one thing completely and fully.
So, children should still be working underground until they die from exposure to their working conditions? Workers should be born into debt to the company hospital? Slavery should still exist if it's economically viable?
Really, no one takes you seriously except for yourself.
...only societies that can cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources will be able to thrive.
That hasn't been true since the Industrial Age. Production capability has increased vastly since the 17th Century.
Take a look at this graph. Your assumptions are incorrect.
In other words, China and Europe will continue to eat our lunch.
Why? They don't appear to me to better "cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources". Instead, the US appears to be screwing the pooch with a rapidly growing economic parasitism.
Nationalized infrastructure, like health care, roads, rail, energy production, research and development, and education are the very definition of socially shared resources. It's accomplished in different ways -- heavy regulation or direct governmental control -- but the effect is similar.
Whereas Americans are for some reason allergic to throwing in with the rest of their citizens, the rest of industrialized society has accepted shared risk as a benefit instead of an assault on their greed, or as it's called now, "liberty."
Our current market economy depends on finite supply, and with limited production capacity per person in order to employ people and pay them wages so they can also be consumers. As automation and robotics take over the means of production, only societies that can cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources will be able to thrive.
In other words, China and Europe will continue to eat our lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.thelocal.se/19376/20090511/
Discussions of rape nowadays use examples of women who are asleep, or have taken drugs or drunk too much alcohol, in order to argue that they cannot properly consent to sex. If they feel taken advantage of the next day, they may call what happened rape. The Daphne project’s Sweden researchers propose that those accused of rape ought to have to ‘prove consent’, but attempts to legislate and document seduction and desire are unlikely to succeed.
I'm sure someone who speaks the language can provide some case law, but I'm sure you'd demand to see the original documents.
PS Obama was born in Hawaii. True story.
There's already video of that. It's two women coincidentally deciding they didn't want to have sex with him after the fact. Alternatively, you can go to any bar right now and hear the same conversation.
It's too bad in Sweden they don't think adult women should be held accountable for their own consent. It's certainly a bizzarre form of feminism.
I never said they didn't escalate it. But perhaps instead of blaming the guys who take it the last yard, it would behoove you to pay attention to who had the ball for the previous 99. The ACLU has been screaming at the top of their lungs since 2002 about unreasonable searches and seizures, but no one listened until it was too late.
And also, fuck you for caring only when it made it to your wife's tits. I guess strip searching and/or blowing up women and children, as long as they were the correct terrorist skin color, was alright?
The choice between backscatter and pat downs began in 2007 after being tested as far back as 2005.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-05-15-airport-xray-bottomstrip_x.htm
READ IT AGAIN, MOTHERFUCKERS.
Now, why wasn't this news back then? Because the GOP gets away with pretending that when they violate basic civil liberties, it's for a good purpose. When Obama came in and declared torture illegal and wanted to shutdown Guantanamo, he's called out for endangering America.
Mandatory screening came after the underwear bomber, and it was pushed by a guy you may remember named Michael Chertoff and the rest of the paranoid fucks like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly, who turned it into a political game to try and prove that the Obama Administration was weak on terror. So they responded with more security measures.
Yeah, the Democrats are still a member of the business party. Are they better than the paranoid, ignorant trash the GOP needs to stay relevant? Absolutely, as every uninformed response like this has demonstrated.
The choice between backscatter and pat downs began in 2007 after being tested as far back as 2005.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-05-15-airport-xray-bottomstrip_x.htm
READ IT AGAIN, MOTHERFUCKERS.
Now, why wasn't this news back then? Because the GOP gets away with pretending that when they violate basic civil liberties, it's for a good purpose. When Obama came in and declared torture illegal and wanted to shutdown Guantanamo, he's called out for endangering America.
Mandatory screening came after the underwear bomber, and it was pushed by a guy you may remember named Michael Chertoff and the rest of the paranoid fucks like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly, who turned it into a political game to try and prove that the Obama Administration was weak on terror. So they responded with more security measures.
Yeah, the Democrats are still a member of the business party. Are they better than the paranoid, ignorant trash the GOP needs to stay relevant? Absolutely, as every uninformed response like this has demonstrated.
Oh, I'd forgotten that the TSA, PATRIOT ACT, bank bailouts, illegal wiretapping, secret torture prisons, Guantanamo, and all the rest of it were products of the Obama Administration during it's reign from 2001 to 2009... but wait, wasn't he elected --
Hang on... okay, Fox News is back on. Whew! The blonde lady made it all make sense again.
Then the GOP would not have a way to scare people into voting against their own interests.
Remember, patriotism is abandoning our liberties and principles to fight terrorism in order to preserve our... uh... profit margins?
I've worked with musicians for about a decade. They all have their own opinions on matters like this, which I've heard many times, in studios, at shows, or just getting fucked up at barbecues.
Mozart does not move modern people like Hey Jude. Hell, I can think of hundreds of artists who are more relevant. Ray Charles, the Stones, James Brown, Black Sabbath, Cash, Woody Guthrie... Mozart may have more technical brilliance, but that's not what music is about.
This is like Bonham versus Buddy Rich, or Hendrix versus Stevie Ray Vaughn. Buddy Rich is in a different universe of technical brilliance, and Vaughn is markedly better than Hendrix, but whose songs do you remember?
Not every generation has a Mozart, but I do think the Beatles and Radiohead are as close as you can get in pop music, then or now.
If you have other suggestions, I'm all ears.
Yeah. If the J-Biebz ever has one song a third as meaningful as any song off of the White Album, I'll buy a hat and eat it.
The Beatles are like the last generation's Mozart, or this generation's Radiohead. The pushed boundaries, established entire genres with single works, and their music continues to be relevant decades after it was released to people who don't even speak the English language.
Bieber is another instrument of the music industry. Without ten producers and million dollar ad campaigns, no one would know his name. He will be replaced as soon as the hysteria winds down with another forgettable tween marketing tool.
The Beatles were artists.
A decent new turntable with a built-in preamp is only $80. Assuming you already have speakers somewhere, you can head down to your local record store and pick up some Beatles reprints at $10 a pop. It won't give you their whole catalog for under $150, but it will give you the best albums and better sound.
If you like classic rock, you haven't heard it until you've spun it on vinyl. For music produced after 1995 it's usually useless, since it was cut digitally.
Reality is a bitch, and technical and engineering types deal with reality.
It's a good thing you're not an engineer.
Photovoltaics do not require direct sunlight, or specifically sunlight at all, in order to function. That's why calculators work inside of buildings without windows. As for this device, I don't know how much power it requires, but I wouldn't be surprised if they designed it so it would operate with the power provided by a kerosene lamp or other type of fire.
Again, please fuck off, and leave all that tough thinking to the adults. Your childish hubris and adolescent lack of self-doubt, a prerequisite for any real engineer, is quite useless out there in the real world.
This perfectly illustrates why the nerd pedantry is lonely, angry, and ignored. People with lives understand "requires no external power supply" to mean "doesn't have to be plugged in." Instead of accepting this, a few people have decided to ignore the hard work of these people to bring revolutionary educational tools into the hands of poor rural children, and quibble about thermodynamics.
From the top and bottom of my heart, please fuck off. The adults are doing useful things. Leave them to it.
It uses a tiny solar cell, like a calculator. If you have some form of light, you have a computer.
Palem says the I-slate is the first of a series of electronic notepads being built around a new class of low-energy-consumption microchips under development with Switzerland's Center for Electronics and Microtechnology. The team says the chips will allow the I-slate to run on solar power from panels similar to those used in hand-held calculators.
If you aren't going to read the articles posted to slashdot, may I ask why you are bothering to come here in the first place? Did they run out of rabble at the local Tea Party meeting inside the Chuck-E-Cheese?
The tax collected as a percentage of GDP in Germany is 40.6%. The tax collected as a percentage of GDP in the USA is 28.3%.
And you think Germany is less socialist than the USA? You're fucking retarded.
God willing your trust fund runs out sooner than later.
In reality, democracies are run by people, not some magical entity called "government."
I think you would have found a very different result on plantations in the south if the slaves were allowed to vote. Alas, the wealthy didn't want anyone else to have that privilege. You should count yourself a proud member of that tradition.
Germany is far more socialist than the US, and is second only to China in raw exports, and second to very few across all economic measures. Your arguments are as hollow as that spheroid travesty you call a head.
A cursory glance at supply and demand will reveal that when the supply isn't finite, the curve doesn't work. Digital media and software consumption is virtually unlimited in supply, so no economic rules apply to it. Likewise, when robotics are mature enough, it will be vastly cheaper to have a million dollar machine that's only input requirement is electricity and maintenance. No sick days. 24 hour operation. No pension, health insurance, bathroom, parking space, or anything else required.
The modern factory was basically established at the very beginning of the 20th century. The next turning point is the computer and robotics revolution, happening now. It is neither useful nor germane to talk about labor productivity in the 18th and 19th centuries. They didn't even have running water, much less hydraulics, hydroforming, microelectronics, etc. Oh, and the quickest way across the country was measured in months, not hours.
The industrial advancements and subsequent employment described above didn't come about because of "heavy regulation" or "direct government control".
No, they came about because of government investment. For better or worse, military technology is the basis for modern life. Without the need for vacuum tube machines filling rooms to calculate trajectories, we would not be communicating as we are now. Companies do not have the resources or the incentive to perform purely scientific research. That's why it all happens in publicly funded education, whether directly or through government research grants. Then it's handed off to private corporations to develop further.
Corruption is a natural state of a large government with low accountability to the public
This is absolutely true. Corruption is also the natural state of every corporation, period. So, when the government is unable or unwilling to regulate the market, it falls apart like a house of cards with a brick on top.
PS: Please continue your argument against education by explaining the following: how is a second home for a wealthy person more economically useful than the education of a dozen students at a community college?
You're dodging the question again. You assert that strong governments destroy economies, but you cite China, Singapore, and Taiwan as growing economies as if they weren't strong states with strong regulations. Fucking Singapore? The same nation that has a blanket ban on chewing gum? China... China?
I don't think the other voices in your head are still taking you seriously.
What is funny about you, is that you have not a single clue about the actual world that is around you.
That's a lot of shit to spew to end up not saying a single thing about the efficacy of regulatory economies. Nearly every single country in the top 100 has a strong regulatory economy.
Let me remind you of your assertion that you have failed to support: "Gov't intervening does not make any sense and it ends up destroying economy." Yet you can name no economy that's doing well that doesn't have an intervening state authority and regulated market.
You are still pathetically, laughably, and predictably full of shit.
Gov't intervening does not make any sense and it ends up destroying economy.
GDP per capita stats are dominated by strong regulatory states, not weak ones. The rest of your crazed ranting cannot change reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
1 Luxembourg $78,409
2 Qatar $78,260
3 Norway $51,985
4 Singapore $50,180
5 Brunei $47,930
6 United States $45,934
— Hong Kong $42,653
7 Switzerland $40,484
8 Netherlands $39,877
9 Ireland $38,685
10 Australia $38,663
Start your graph in 1700 instead of 1950. Then we'll have something to talk about.
You're quite aware that modern economics didn't fully develop until the late 19th Century, right? The reason there's no graph through the 18th Century is because they wouldn't know what to measure.
There's a guy named Henry Ford you also may have heard of:
The provision of a whole new system of electric generation emancipated industry from the leather belt and line shaft, for it eventually became possible to provide each tool with its own electric motor. This may seem only a detail of minor importance. In fact, modern industry could not be carried out with the belt and line shaft for a number of reasons. The motor enabled machinery to be arranged in the order of the work, and that alone has probably doubled the efficiency of industry, for it has cut out a tremendous amount of useless handling and hauling. The belt and line shaft were also tremendously wasteful – so wasteful indeed that no factory could be really large, for even the longest line shaft was small according to modern requirements. Also high speed tools were impossible under the old conditions-neither the pulleys nor the belts could stand modern speeds. Without high speed tools and the finer steels which they brought about, there could be nothing of what we call modern industry."
Nationalized infrastructure, like health care, roads, rail, energy production, research and development, and education are the very definition of socially shared resources. It's accomplished in different ways -- heavy regulation or direct governmental control -- but the effect is similar.
Or by regulated markets. The effect is similar, but some ways work better than others.
The words. They mean things.
3. I don't care if ANYBODY thinks gov't regulations is a 'good thing'. Gov't is terrible from my perspective for every single one thing completely and fully.
So, children should still be working underground until they die from exposure to their working conditions? Workers should be born into debt to the company hospital? Slavery should still exist if it's economically viable?
Really, no one takes you seriously except for yourself.
...only societies that can cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources will be able to thrive.
That hasn't been true since the Industrial Age. Production capability has increased vastly since the 17th Century.
Take a look at this graph. Your assumptions are incorrect.
In other words, China and Europe will continue to eat our lunch.
Why? They don't appear to me to better "cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources". Instead, the US appears to be screwing the pooch with a rapidly growing economic parasitism.
Nationalized infrastructure, like health care, roads, rail, energy production, research and development, and education are the very definition of socially shared resources. It's accomplished in different ways -- heavy regulation or direct governmental control -- but the effect is similar.
Whereas Americans are for some reason allergic to throwing in with the rest of their citizens, the rest of industrialized society has accepted shared risk as a benefit instead of an assault on their greed, or as it's called now, "liberty."
Our current market economy depends on finite supply, and with limited production capacity per person in order to employ people and pay them wages so they can also be consumers. As automation and robotics take over the means of production, only societies that can cope with overproduction with more socially shared resources will be able to thrive.
In other words, China and Europe will continue to eat our lunch.